Marx on immigration ..
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
Let's imagine that there was no immigration, would everything be delightful? Would we be living in the land of milk and honey, drinking Ambrosia and lacing daisies through each other's hair? Would the working classes suddenly engage in battle with there class enemies? Britain in the 20's and 30's was mostly homogeneous - who would want to go back to then? Those who use peusdo-Left arguments against Immigration seem to putting old wine into new bottles. Not everything that serves the needs of Capitalism is a bad thing. It could be argued that the Welfare State serves the interests of Capitalism (healthy workers, continuity of Health Care etc.) - Does this mean that Progressives should fight against the NHS? These 'LEFT' anti-immigration arguments sound to me like Ultra-Leftism and Ultra-Leftists almost always find themselves agreeing with the Right.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
durruti02 said:
Capitalism does not encourage the free movement of labour it stifles it. In recent times in the UK it has been reported that there is now less mobility for the working class not more.
Anti-capitalists and those who are internationalists oppose controls on the working class.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
durruti02 said:oh please .. that is absolute nonsense!! in fact that is the most nonsense i have seen on here for years!
just look at the stats .. e.g. those that frank field was qouting the other day ..
As a report into mobility in the UK suggests; working class children are deprived of rich language, culture and self-esteem. Not having a job still stands out as the great enemy, whether it's Bangladeshi young men, single parents or the unskilled. Poor children learn to be poor by being despised at school and with depressed parents unable to give them aspirations.
This is stifling for anyone and a result of an unequal economic system that confines people to their expected path. This state of affairs also affects a persons mobility within national boundaries and beyond.
According to the latest available figures, which Frank Field quotes, the overall migration picture saw 359,000 people leave the UK while 582,000 settled here in 2004 (not massive in relation to population numbers). It would be interesting to analyse these statistics and get a picture of what the actual class makeup of the individuals migrating. I suspect the vast majority would be middle class; those who have aspirations, language skills, self-esteem and wealth to be able to make a move abroad and not to be affected too much by strict immigration controls (which btw limit working class mobility even further).
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
bump
no you didn't answer in the other thread. So, what about your average migrant worker, do you think they will join such a union? you must recognise this as a central flaw in your argument. You cannot argue, as you did earlier, to unionise immigrants who you intend to force employers not to employ.durruti02 said:
You see to me there has always been an element of self-interest in trade unionism/socialism. It is in every workers self-interest, in my opinion, to unite with other workers and fight for equal treatment. In demanding a philanthropic attitude from migrants, while bending to sectional self-interest of other workers, the seeds of division are being sown. Migrant workers today, why not women workers tomorrow? Where does so much sectionalism end?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
bump
I let this pass, to clarify our point of disagreement for Barry, however I do feel this question is valid. What do you think about migrants who come and work for "the going rate"? Let's say nurses in the NHS for example.durruti02 said:
PS. I have answered your questions about my children etc.this line of questioning from you, are you poor, do you have children, are you a shop steward, seems to suggest that you think only people who fit your criteria have entitled to our view on this topic. Is that correct? If that is not correct, what is the purpose of your questioning how many children I have?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
durruti02 said:oh please .. that is absolute nonsense!! in fact that is the most nonsense i have seen on here for years!
Nope, it's part-accurate.
While the movement of skilled labour increases, the movement of unskilled labour does get stifled.
Mad Frankie has had over 30 years of experience in spinning statistics to say what he wants them to say, which is why he was so effective when he was the guvnor at CPAG, and why he always appears to have a handle on what he's talking about.
Always worth looking at the data without the spin though, sometimes you find it's telling a different story.
urbanrevolt
New Member
Whilst recognising that this isn't a contribution to the deabte thought it was relevant just in case any advocates of being against all controls wanted to come to this conference:
The well-known slogan “Workers of the world unite” means what it says.
It does not mean “Only workers with the correct immigration status
unite”
HELP BUILD THE NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFERENCE AGAINST IMMIGRATION
CONTROLS
Planning meeting Saturday July 15th, 1-5.30, Cross Street Chapel, Cross
Street, Manchester
As well as inviting you to the July 15th meeting we also ask your trade
union organisation to give its name as a sponsor to the proposed
conference
The No-One Illegal pamphlet “Workers Control not Immigration Controls”
has already been sponsored by several trades council and trade union
branches – and has been welcomed by the general secretary of NAFTHE.
The pamphlet , along with unions such as the NUJ and NAFTHE, adopts a
position of total opposition to controls. In arguing for this position
it goes beyond the justified support for all campaigns against
deportations and detentions. It also examines how controls directly affect
trade unionists. In particular it looks at:
• Employer sanctions. This is the transformation of employers into
spies for the Home Office by criminalising them for employing undocumented
labour
• Trafficking – how to oppose traffickers whilst fighting for the
absolute right to remain of those subject to trafficking
• Defiance not compliance – how the relationship between welfare
provision and immigration status means that health, benefit and social
workers are being placed in the role of immigration control enforcers
• The right to work of all irrespective of immigration status. At the
moment asylum seekers are prohibited from working
• Alternatively the right of undocumented labour not to be treated as
slave labour. For instance the latest legislation allows those detained
in removal centres to work – without minimum wage protection.
• How trade unions should recruit workers irrespective of immigration
status and should fight both for the equality of wages/conditions of
all workers and for the regularisation of those presently without full
immigration status.
• How certain jobs, particularly within the civil service, are only
open to those with full immigration status.
• The strange position of immigration officers who are themselves often
in trade unions (in particular the PCS) and whose role is to detain and
deport other workers.
No One Is Illegal: 16 Wood St, Bolton BL1 IDY, email info@noii.org.uk
web www.noii.org.uk
The well-known slogan “Workers of the world unite” means what it says.
It does not mean “Only workers with the correct immigration status
unite”
HELP BUILD THE NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFERENCE AGAINST IMMIGRATION
CONTROLS
Planning meeting Saturday July 15th, 1-5.30, Cross Street Chapel, Cross
Street, Manchester
As well as inviting you to the July 15th meeting we also ask your trade
union organisation to give its name as a sponsor to the proposed
conference
The No-One Illegal pamphlet “Workers Control not Immigration Controls”
has already been sponsored by several trades council and trade union
branches – and has been welcomed by the general secretary of NAFTHE.
The pamphlet , along with unions such as the NUJ and NAFTHE, adopts a
position of total opposition to controls. In arguing for this position
it goes beyond the justified support for all campaigns against
deportations and detentions. It also examines how controls directly affect
trade unionists. In particular it looks at:
• Employer sanctions. This is the transformation of employers into
spies for the Home Office by criminalising them for employing undocumented
labour
• Trafficking – how to oppose traffickers whilst fighting for the
absolute right to remain of those subject to trafficking
• Defiance not compliance – how the relationship between welfare
provision and immigration status means that health, benefit and social
workers are being placed in the role of immigration control enforcers
• The right to work of all irrespective of immigration status. At the
moment asylum seekers are prohibited from working
• Alternatively the right of undocumented labour not to be treated as
slave labour. For instance the latest legislation allows those detained
in removal centres to work – without minimum wage protection.
• How trade unions should recruit workers irrespective of immigration
status and should fight both for the equality of wages/conditions of
all workers and for the regularisation of those presently without full
immigration status.
• How certain jobs, particularly within the civil service, are only
open to those with full immigration status.
• The strange position of immigration officers who are themselves often
in trade unions (in particular the PCS) and whose role is to detain and
deport other workers.
No One Is Illegal: 16 Wood St, Bolton BL1 IDY, email info@noii.org.uk
web www.noii.org.uk
I think that what you can say is this:ViolentPanda said:
1/ there are massive disparities in wages and standards of living between this country and others that create a pressure towards immigration
2/ the bosses know this, just likie everyone else does
3/ by applying controls to unskilled/low skilled workers a pool of workers is created here who are atomised, outside the law and outside the remit and reach of current collective bargaining organisations.
4/ this serves the interests of the bosses and capital as a whole as it leads ot a downward pressure on wages and conditions for workers that are 'legal', unionised (or not) and resident.
urbanrevolt
New Member
Good points. I think the 'Workers' Control' they refer to is also 'workers' control' of stuggles such as social workers refusing to implement Section 9- the law which had allowed 'failed' asylum seeking families to be evicted with adults homeless and children taken into care- or German pilots union Cockpit where they refused to fly planes with deportees on.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
what you mean by "we"? If we had global workers control, then no, we wouldn't have immigration control, and we wouldn't have economic migration. If you mean we, there was workers control in Britain only, then no we wouldn't have immigration controls.mattkidd12 said:
Adam Smith makes it quite clear, what produces wealth is people. The more people you have, the more welth you create. The only reason that doesn't happen under capitalism, is because production is based upon private greed rather than human need. In the workers state in the UK, anybody who wants to come would be welcome, because they would be employed, there would be no unemployment, because production would be for human need, not private profit. An elementary Socialist-Worker argument which you should be familiar with matt.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
kropotkin said:
I'd say he meant "there will be no unemployment because there will be no employment", but he's a swappie.
As he is a swappie he probably means that we'll be compelled to work at whatever factory, call centre or public latrine the local cadres assign us to.
damn right that's what they want- if it was ever possible that they'd make headway, it would be evry important to point out that they want to turn society into a giant prison-camp.
As Paul Cardan put it, "Those who think of nothing better than 3 square meals a day and constant employment need look no further than the nearest gaol"
As Paul Cardan put it, "Those who think of nothing better than 3 square meals a day and constant employment need look no further than the nearest gaol"
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need. but in the case of you to, we will make an exception. You will be forced to work the maximum,
which will be 10 hours.
which will be 10 hours.TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
when on the picket line, do you link arms with the racist, and fight the common enemy?kropotkin said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
another one.junius said:
so your contribution to the topic of the thread is, there would be immigration controls in anarchism, because workers don't create all wealth?
ResistanceMP3 said:another one.
Confused you might be, anarchist I am not. Nor do I vote against abolishing immigration controls now when it suits. Take a look at this article below.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/605/nature.htm
Learnt anything?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
ResistanceMP3 said:from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need. but in the case of you to, we will make an exception. You will be forced to work the maximum,
Not much time for the arts, leisure and intellectual curiosity then.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ResistanceMP3 said:from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need. but in the case of you to, we will make an exception. You will be forced to work the maximum,
Leave it to the swappies to come over all totalitarian!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Notice how Gauleiter/Kommisar ResistanceMP3 has already threatened us with the gulag?kropotkin said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
MC5 said:Not much time for the arts, leisure and intellectual curiosity then.
Nah, that's only for the vanguard, that is.
After all, I'm sure they'd deserve it for leading the revolution.
Of course, when I say "leading" I mean "directing from a safe distance while the proleteriat shed their blood", but I'm sure we take it as read that such intellectual giants shouldn't risk their physical selves in battle.
Mind you, when I say "risk themselves" I mean "shouldn't risk their stunted bodies and pointy heads" and "shouldn't draw attention to themselves as their middle-class accents might mislead the proleteriat into thinking they're the class enemy rather than the revolutionary vanguard".
Similar threads
